Not The Onion

16636 readers

765 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

815

Eight US states seek to outlaw chemtrails – even though they aren’t real (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by abacabadabacaba@infosec.pub to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

179 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Folks who buy into conspiracy theories may buy into more than one, often for similar reasons. A lot of them boil down to "Big They is trying to control you by putting X in the Y, so don't eat the Y" and if you're willing to buy that story once you're probably willing to buy it again. While I don't think the myths have much to do with each other, I bet you'll find a lot of "chemtrail" believers also...being afraid of 5G cell networks? Vaccines. Whatever they don't understand.

Industry executives hiding the harmful effects of their products definitely happens though. It's quite well documented.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

The reason I gave those two examples was to highlight that conspiracy can range from false to (almost certainly) true.

Folks who buy into conspiracy theories may buy into more than one, often for similar reasons.

I have no data on this but suspect it is more true for lower IQ than higher IQ.

However, I don't believe it should be a standard assumption. Considering one topic to be possible doesn't automatically imply a person believes in something else.